Talks and Dialogues Saanen 1967

Krishnamurti: I'm coming to that Sir. You see you are not actually doing it. If you are doing it step by step you will soon discover the nature of the observer. So what has happened? Awareness has exposed a network of escapes - superficial escapes - and also with that awareness I see a deeper level of escapes - the motives, the traditions, the fears which I have and so on. So there I am. Beginning with the brown shirt and the scarf I have discovered - awareness has shown - this extraordinary complex entity that I am - actually shown it! - not theoretically. You're following, Sir? That is, this awareness has actually shown what is. Until now the observer has been watching all this taking place. I have watched that shirt, the colour of the scarf, as though it were something outside me - which it is - right? Then I have watched the image which I have built about you. Then that awareness has shown the complexity of this image and I'm still the observer of this image. So there is the image and the observer of that image. (I am working and you are not!) So again there is the duality: the observer and the thing observed which is the image; and the dozens of images which I have (if I have them) and the escapes from the various forms of conflict which these images have caused, superficially and deeply. And there is still the observer watching them.

We said yesterday that we would go on talking about the question of knowing oneself. We have been discussing the problem of violence, and to understand it fully one has to comprehend the whole structure of the self, the me: what I actually am. Therefore it seems to me important to go into the question of knowing oneself. Because, if I do not under stand myself completely, I have no basis for rational thinking; I have no foundation for action, I have no roots in what is virtue. Unless I understand myself, I am always in contradiction, in confusion and hence in conflict and misery. And being in conflict, in sorrow, inevitably that must express itself in some form of violence. So it seems to me very important to understand oneself, not according to any specialist, or to any religious concept of what is the `me', or the self, but actually to become aware of it as it operates, as it functions. But if I try to understand myself according to some philosopher or psychologist, then I am trying to understand them; what they think about me, what they think is my structure, my nature.

Krishnamurti: No Sir, it doesn't bang into you. So I have to understand myself - right? I don't want to quarrel with you under any circumstance. I want to live peacefully with you; if you want my shirt I'll give it to you. Fortunately I have no property and if you want that property you can have it; but I won't quarrel with you. If you want to come and set on the platform and I sit there, you're welcome, I won't quarrel with you. I'm not ambitious, I'm not greedy, I don't want any of those things, because I don't want to quarrel with you. To me, what is important is not to quarrel, therefore the other things subside. To quarrel like so many monkeys, like animals, is uncivilized, immoral in the deep sense. I feel that very strongly, therefore I'll do it. So, Sir, it all boils down to one thing: how deeply, how fundamentally do we want to live without violence? How deeply do we want to live at peace with each other? We may say we want it - but actually! And that's why it's very important to go within oneself, to find out the nature and the structure of one's being. Therefore, one has to know oneself. Perhaps we can discuss this question of knowing oneself tomorrow. 14th August 1967

Krishnamurti: No, no, we have been through that Sir. We have discussed the nature of violence, we have been into that and I'm putting the same question differently. I want to live in this world, not as an idea but actually, every minute of my life, I want to live in a different way, in which there is no conflict, which means no violence. Will you put this

Krishnamurti: Of course. What are we asking, Sir? We are trying to find out the nature of conflict, conflict being violence. Now, this conflict in which we have lived has created a consciousness in which there is the observer and the observed. Right? There is the me and the not-me, which means there is a separation between the observer and the observed. Right? Now, will not this violence, this conflict endure as long as there is this separation?

Now, as long as there is a separation between idea and action, there must be contradiction and therefore there must be conflict, and this conflict is violence - isn't it? I have an ideology - Catholic, Communist, whatever it is - and according to that ideology, ideal, or tradition, I act; I approximate the action to the ideal and hence there is a contradiction and in this contradiction there is conflict. The very nature of violence is this contradiction - right? I am violent and there is also in me a sense of kindliness, gentleness, so there is a contradiction. This contradiction contributes to greater violence. And we are asking ourselves whether it is at all possible to act without conditioning, and hence act without contradiction, effort and violence. Please, this requires a great deal of enquiry, understanding; it mustn't just be accepted. Because all of us have ideals. To me, to the speaker, every form of ideal or ideology, whether it be Communist, Catholic, Hindu or whatever it is, is idiotic, it has no sense; because it prevents not only seeing and therefore acting, but it prevents the understanding of the total structure of violence. Are we going with each other so far? What do you say, Sirs? This is not a talk by me, this is a dialogue between us, a conversation.

If we may, we'll continue with what we were talking about yesterday, which was violence. I think we should be clear what these dialogues, these conversations are meant for. For the time being it seems to me that it is so utterly futile to be concerned with another: to be concerned with the rich or with the poor. Our concern is with a transformation that is necessary within oneself. Because, as we said the other day, we are the result of the society which each one of us has created: in the state in which we live there is no difference between society externally and psychologically, inwardly. We are trying to understand the structure and the nature of the psyche of each one of us and we are concerned with bringing about a radical transformation - to go beyond and above this conflict, this violence. Violence, not only externally, but also inwardly - the conflict, the contradiction (which breeds aggression, hatred, antagonism) - we are trying to understand what this violence is, what this aggression is, and whether it is at all possible to go beyond it. And that's what we are going to go into during these remaining dialogues.

Krishnamurti: We said, we have not only to analyse the structure and nature of violence (which is in ourselves) but also in the very process of analysing we shall perhaps come upon that state of mind which is totally aware of the whole problem. You follow, Sir, what I mean? Most of us don't even know how to analyse. I do not think through analysis anything is going to be achieved. I cannot get rid of my violence through analysis. I should probably justify it, or modify it slightly, live a little more quietly with a little more affection; but analysis, whether with the professional or through oneself will not lead anywhere. When one realizes that this process of analysis does not lead anywhere, discovers for oneself that this analytical process has no end and has no meaning, then perhaps one will have a mind that begins totally to be aware of the whole problem.

Indians who have been told for centuries not to hurt. You understand Sir? When you look at that picture you realize what human beings are. And I am part of it, a human being. And I say to myself - how am I who am responsible for all this (I feel responsible, you understand? I feel responsible, it isn't just a set of words) and I say to myself, I can only do something if I am beyond anger, beyond violence, beyond nationality. That feeling that I must understand brings tremendous vitality, energy and passion to find out. So, first I have to learn how to look at anger; I have to learn how to look at my wife, at my husband, at my children; I have to learn how to listen to the politician, I have to learn now - you understand, Sir? I have to learn why I am not objective, why I condemn or justify, I have to learn about it. I can't say, well it's part of my nature. I must know, so I have to tackle the question of learning. What do you think is the state of mind that learns?

Yesterday we were saying that we would go to the very end of this problem of violence. To do that we have to be quite serious and put our mind and heart into it so that when we do analyse the nature of violence we are not only examining it intellectually, verbally, but also seeing violence in our selves - as aggression, anger, hate, enmity and so on. And becoming aware of that violence in oneself, to see if it is at all possible to go above and beyond it and never come back to it again, never in any form be violent in oneself. Most of us take a pleasure in violence, in disliking somebody, hating a particular race or a group of people, having antagonistic feelings about others. There is a certain pleasure in this, which I think most of us are aware of. But I don't think we realize that there is a far greater state of mind in which all violence of any sort has come to an end. In that there is far more joy (I dislike to use the word enjoyment) than in the mere pleasure of violence with its conflicts, with its hatred and fears. So if we are at all serious we should by discussing, by the exchange of ideas, thoughts, feelings, we should discover whether it is at all possible totally to end every form of violence. I think it is possible and yet to live in this world, in this monstrous brutal world of violence.

There are two schools of thought; one says `violence is innate in man; `violence is part of his nature, he's born with it, it is his structure'. The other says `violence is the result of the social or cultural structure in which he lives'. Right? That is, human beings are innately violent, or they are violent because society has made them so. We are not discussing which school you belong to. What is important is that we are violent; and is it possible to go beyond it? That is the whole question; not whether it is innate or is the result of the social structure in which we live. Now let's proceed. I am violent - right? Now what do you mean by that word `violent'?

Krishnamurti: It comes to the same thing, Sir. Why am I violent and do I know the nature of violence, do I know what is implied in that violence? Sir, we must be clear how we converse about this. Are we exchanging ideas, opinions, or are we conversing together so that we can penetrate more and more deeply into this fact of violence, which is in us? Therefore, if we are discussing violence, we must be vulnerable to this fact and not resist it: not say `I am not vulnerable', `I am above all violence' (which would be absurd) nor say, `I'm only concerned with the improvement of the world and stopping violence out there'.

In all those forms of meditation there is implied an activity of thought, an activity of imitation, a movement of conformity to an established order. To the speaker those are not meditation at all. Meditation is something entirely different. Meditation is to be aware of thought, of feeling, never to correct it, never to say it is right or wrong, never to justify it, but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching and moving with that thought, with that feeling, you begin to understand and to be aware of the whole nature of thought and feeling. Out of this awareness comes silence, not simulated, not controlled, not put together by thought, for silence put together by thought is stagnant, is dead. Silence comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itself, how all thought is never free but always old. To see all this, to see the movement of every thought, to understand it, to be aware of it, is to come to that silence which is meditation, in which the `observer' never is. 30th July, 1967 J. Krishnamurti Talk and Dialogues Saanen 1967 1st Public Dialogue 2nd August 1967

K: What place has art for a mind which is a religious mind? - not the phoney religious mind that belongs to some church, or that believes in some doctrine or in some philosophy, such a mind is not a religious mind at all - but to a mind that is living in a totally different dimension, to that mind, has art any meaning at all? Why is it that we depend so much on music, poetry - why? Is it a form of escape, a stimulation? You paint a picture and I `how ugly'. Or, if you become famous, it fetches a great price. But if you are directly in contact with nature, the hills, the clouds, the rivers, the trees, the birds, if you watch and are with the movement of a bird on the wing, the beauty of every movement in the sky, in the hills, in the shadows, or the beauty in the face of another, do you think you will want to go to any museum, to look at any picture? Is it perhaps, because you do not know how to look at all the things about you, that you go to the museum to look, or you take mescaline, marijuana, drugs to stimulate you, so that you can see better? One has to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary. You may have questioned the political tyrants, the dictators of religion, but have you never questioned the authority of a Picasso or of a great musician. We accept, and in that acceptance we grow weary and we want more pictures, more non-objective art and painting, and so on. But if we knew how to look at the face of a passer-by, at a flower by the roadside, a cloud of an evening, to look with complete attention and therefore with complete joy and love - then all these other things would have very little meaning.

A mind that is always comparing, always measuring, will always engender illusion. If I am measuring myself against you, who are clever, more intelligent, I am struggling to be like you and I am denying myself as I am, and I am creating an illusion. So when I have understood that comparisons in any form only lead to greater illusion and greater misery, that when I analyse myself, or when I identify myself with something greater, whether it be the state, a saviour, an ideology, when I understand that all such comparative thinking leads to greater conformity and therefore greater conflict, then I put it completely away. Then my mind is no longer seeking, no longer groping, searching, asking, questioning, demanding, waiting - which does not mean that my mind is satisfied with things as they are - then my mind has no illusion or imagination. Such a mind can move in a totally different dimension. The dimension in which we live, the life of everyday, the pain, pleasure, and fear that has conditioned the mind, that has limited the nature of the mind, all that is completely gone. Then there is enjoyment, which is something entirely different from pleasure. Pleasure is brought into being by thought, as thought brings into being fear. But enjoyment, the real joy, the feeling of great bliss, is not of thought. Then the mind functions in a dimension in which there is no conflict, there is no sense of `otherness', no sense of duality.

It is very important to understand the problem of time. Confronted with fear of living, faced with this problem of existence in which life has no meaning at all as it is, one can invent meanings, one can substitute for the ugly a concept of the beautiful, an ideological existence, but these are all escapes from actually what is. To understand, to resolve this life of misery, confusion and everything that one has contributed to make it so monstrous as it is, one has to understand not only how to observe but also understand the question of time. We are using the word `understanding', not in the sense of intellectual understanding or a verbal comprehension but as an understanding that comes when you give your whole attention to something. If I want to under- stand the beauty of a bird, a fly, or a leaf, or the nature of a person with all his complexities, I have to give my attention. I can only give my attention completely when I really care to understand this problem, which means when I really love to understand it and am not frightened. In this understanding one has not only to know, observe, to learn about what it is to see, but also to learn about time and the process of thought - of what thinking is. With these things we have to be acquainted, familiar.

We have also been talking about fear and we shall continue enquiring, not only into the structure and the nature of fear, but also to find out whether one can actually be deeply and profoundly free from that thing we call fear. Because it seems to me that unless you leave at the end of these talks actually free, entirely, right through your being, of this enormous weight of fear - and not with more problems, not with more complex desires to understand what has been said, not caught in explanations - then it seems to me that your attending the talks will be utterly useless, will have no meaning and these gatherings will become another form of entertainment, another form of stimulation and every form of stimulation makes the mind more dull, more heavy, incapable of swift movement.

To understand the nature of sorrow we must, as we said, go into this question of passion. You know, love is not desire or pleasure and that is a very difficult thing to see the truth of - to see, to actually feel from the very depth of your being, that love is not desire or pleasure. Because desire, which we have gone into in previous talks, becomes pleasure though thinking about something which has given you pleasure, enjoyment, and you think about it more and more - that thought is not love. Thinking about you, whom I love, is not love. When I think about you - whom I think I love - when I think about you, it is pleasure that I have derived from you being sustained by thought - I think about you and the moment thought enters love goes away.

We were saying the other day that fear and being beyond and above fear, is a very complex problem, it needs a great deal of understanding in which there is neither suppression nor control nor any form of elimination. To understand fear one must be aware of the structure and the nature of fear - one has to learn about it and not come to it with any form of conclusion.

I was told by someone who had studied these things, that in ancient China, before a painter of nature commenced to paint, he sat in front of a tree for days, months, years - it doesn't matter - until he was the tree; not that he became the tree, not that he identified himself with the tree, but he was the tree. This means that there was no space between the observer and the observed, there was no experience as the observer experiencing the beauty, the movement, the shadow, the depth of a leaf, the quality of colour. He was totally the tree and only in that state could he paint. In ancient India this also existed, they were not trying to be fashionable, non-objective, non this and that and all the modern tricks. Identification with something is fairly easy but it leads to greater conflict, misery, and loneliness. Most of us identify ourselves with the family, with the husband, with the wife, the nation, and that has led to great misery, great wars. We are talking of something entirely different and you must understand this, not verbally, but at the core, in your heart, right at the root of your being, then you will see that you will be for ever timelessly free of fear, and only then will you know what love is.

It is very difficult to express in words the nature of that state of mind in which there is not only the past as the observer, but also the observer who is actually observing listening and yet with a chapter, a root in the past. It is because the observer lives in the past and in the present which is touched by the past, that there is a division between the observer and the observed. This division, this space, this time interval, between the observer and the observed, comes to an end only when there is another quality, which is not of time at all, which is neither of the past nor of the present; then only is the observer the observed, and this is not a process of identification with the observed.

A quiet mind is not to be cultivated; a mind that is made to be quiet is a stagnant mind, it has no quality of depth, width and beauty. But when you are serious you want to see fear completely, you no longer want to live with fear for it is a dreadful thing; you have had fear, you must know how it warps, twists, how it darkens the days. When you become serious, intense, it is like living with a serpent in your room, you watch every movement, you are very, very sensitive to the least noise it makes. To observe fear you have to live with it, you must know and understand all its content, its nature, its structure, its movement. Can one live with fear in this way? Have you ever tried living in this way with anything, living with yourself first, living with your wife or husband? If you have tried living with yourself you begin to see that `yourself' is not a static state, it is a living thing - to live with that living thing your mind must also be alive, it cannot be alive if it is caught in opinions, judgments and values. To live with a living thing is one of the most difficult things to do, for we do not live with the living thing but with the image and the image is a dead thing to which we continually add and that is why all relationships go wrong.

To live with fear, which is alive, requires a mind and a heart that are extraordinarily subtle, that have no conclusion, no formula and therefore can follow every movement of fear. If you so observe and live with fear - and this doesn't take a whole day, it can take a second, a minute - you begin to know the whole nature of fear and you will inevitably ask: who is the entity that is living with fear, who is it that is living with it, following it, that is observing it? Who is the `observer' and what is he observing?

Can the mind see the totality of fear and not merely the different forms of fear? You understand my question? Now how is it possible to see the totality of fear as well as these different aspects of it - the central structure and nature of fear and also its fragmentation, such as the fear of the dark, the fear of walking alone, the fear of the wife or the husband, or losing the job? If I could understand the central nature of fear then I should be able to examine all the details, but if I merely look at the details then I shall never come to the central issue.

We will continue talking over together the whole complex problem of fear. I think we should bear in mind that we are concerned not merely about the peripheral changes but rather with a radical revolution in the very psyche itself; we must understand the psychological structure not only of the society in which we live, but also the psychological structure and the nature of ourselves. The two, society and ourselves, are not separate. We are society and living in a world that is so confused, so antagonistic and at war, we must bring about a revolution in ourselves - that's the primary issue at all times. The more one is concerned, not merely with superficial change, with the world, with its misery, with its devilment, but really concerned with one's own structure and nature, the more it seems to me one must become very, very serious. We are serious about certain things which give us a great deal of pleasure, a great deal of satisfaction, we want to pursue that pleasure at any price, whether it be sexual or the fulfilment of ambition, or some kind of gratification. But very few of us are serious in the sense of seeing the whole problem of existence, the conflicts, the wars, the anxieties, the despairs, the loneliness, the suffering. To be serious about these fundamental issues means a continual attention to these matters, not just sporadic interest, not an interest that you occasionally give when you have a problem that is biting you. This seriousness must be our background, from which we think, live and act; otherwise we fritter away our life discussing endlessly things that really don't matter, which is such a waste of energy. The more one is serious inwardly, the more there is maturity. Maturity is not a matter of age surely? It is not a matter of gathering a great many experiences, or accumulating a great deal of knowledge. Maturity has nothing to do with age and time, but comes rather with this quality of seriousness. Such maturity is only possible when there is wider and deeper knowing of oneself.

Q: Sir, there is an essential difference; that is, you approach this whole problem and you don't ask anybody about it at all, and I don't do that. What is the nature of what you do?

K: The problem is not the essential difference between the speaker and the questioner, but why does the questioner depend? Why do you depend, what are the implications of dependence? I depend on my wife, or my wife depends on me - why? Follow this out - don't brush it aside. Why does she depend on me? Is it not because in her self she is not clear, she is unhappy, therefore I help her, I sustain her, I nourish her, or she nourishes me. So it is a mutual dependence, psychologically as well as objectively. So I depend, and when she looks at somebody else she has taken away that support on which I depend, I am hurt, I am afraid, I am jealous. So if you depend on me, on the speaker, to nourish you psychologically, then you will always be in doubt and say, `My goodness, he may be wrong' or `There is a better teacher round the corner, there is a greater psychologist, the latest anthropologist who has studied so much, who knows so much'. So you will depend on him; but if you understand the nature of your own dependence then you will have no need of authority at all from anybody. Then your eyes will be clear to look; then you will really look out of innocence and innocence is its own action. 18th July, 1967

Krishnamurti: How do you know I have confidence? And what do you mean by that word `confidence'? You say I have confidence in approaching a problem of such a nature as fear. Is it confidence? That is to say, being certain, capable, being capable of analysis, capable of seeing the whole of it - having the capacity and from that capacity having confidence; because you are sure and confident in yourself - you are clever and therefore you can tackle such a fundamental issue. And you ask, how do I get that confidence? First you posit, you state that I have confidence, then you ask how do I get it? How do you know I have confidence? Perhaps I have no confidence at all? Do follow this please. I dislike or distrust confidence for it implies that one is certain, and has achieved; one moves as from a platform, from a state, which means one has accumulated a great deal of knowledge, a great deal of experience and from that one has gained confidence and is therefore able to tackle the problem. But it isn't a bit like that, quite the contrary, for the moment one has reached a conclusion, a position of achievement, of knowledge, from which one starts examining, one is finished, then one is translating every living thing in terms of the old. Whereas, if one has no foothold, if there is no certainty, no achievement, then there is freedom to examine, freedom to look. And when one looks with freedom it is always new.

We are asking - is fear to be divided, as the conscious fears and the unconscious fears? Please be careful how you answer this question, for if you say they are not to be divided then you are denying the unconscious. If you accept that fears are to be divided into the conscious and the unconscious, then you accept that formula. See what is implied when you make the division into fears of the deeply rooted unconscious and the superficial fears. What is implied in that? One can be fairly easily conscious and aware and know the superficial fears by one's immediate reactions. But to unearth, unravel, uproot, to expose the deep-rooted fears, how is that to take place - through dreams, through intimations, through hints? All that implies time. Or is there only fear, which fear we translate into different forms? Only one desire, but the objects of desire change? Desire is always the same - perhaps fear is always the same - one fear which is translated into different fears. I am afraid of this and that, but I realize that fear cannot be divided. This is something that you have to realize, it is not a logical conclusion, not some thing which you put together and believe in. But when you see that fear cannot be divided you have made a discovery that is tremendous and then you will have put away altogether this problem of the unconscious and you will no longer depend on the psychologists, the analysts. This is really a very serious thing, for when you see that fear is indivisible you understand that it is a movement which expresses itself in different ways, not the separate fears of death, of my wife, of losing my job, of not achieving, fulfilling myself and so on. And as long as you see that movement - and not the object to which the movement goes - then you are facing an immense question. Then you are asking how one can look at fear which is indivisible and therefore not fragmentary, without the fragmentation which the mind has cultivated. You are following? I have been presented with the nature of fear as a totality, there is only a total fear, not the fragmentary fears. Now can my mind, which thinks in fragments - my wife, my child, my family, my job, my country - you know how it functions in fragments - can my fragmentary mind observe the total picture of fear? Can it? You are understanding the question? I have lived a life of fragmentation, my thought is only capable of thinking in fragmentation, so I only look at fear through the fragmentary process of thought. To look at total fear must I not be without the fragmentary process of thought? Thought, the whole process of the machinery of thinking, is fragmentation, it breaks up everything. I love you and I hate you, you are my enemy, you are my friend. My peculiar idiosyncrasies, my inclinations are in battle with everything else - my job, my position, my prestige, my country and your country, my God and your God - it is all the fragmentation of thought. And this thought is always old, it is never new and is therefore never free. Thought can never be free because it is the reaction of memory and memory is old. This thought looks at the total state of fear, or tries to look at it, and when it looks it reduces it into fragments. So the mind can only look at this total fear when there is no movement of thought.

We as human beings, as we are, are only a result, a psychological product. In that state - in being a product of time, of culture, of experience, of knowledge, of all the accumulated memories of a thousand yesterdays, or of yesterday - there is no aloneness at all. All our relationships are based on what has been, or what should be, therefore all relation ship is a conflict, a battlefield. If one would Understand what is right relationship, one must enquire into the nature and the structure of solitude, which is to be completely alone. But that word alone creates an image - watch yourself, you will see. When you use that word alone you have already a formula, an image, and you try to live up to that image, to that formula. But the word or the image is not the fact. One has to understand and live with that which actually is. We are not alone, we are a bundle of memories, handed down through centuries, as Germans, as Russians, as Europeans, and so on.

When we discuss the question of fear, we must, of necessity, understand the nature of freedom, or see that when we talk about freedom we are not talking about complete freedom, but rather freedom from some inconvenient, un pleasant, undesirable thing. We don't want to be free from pleasure; we want to be free from pain. But pain is the shadow of pleasure - the two cannot be separated, they are the one coin with pleasure and pain on reverse sides.

Before we begin to unravel the very complex issue of fear we should also, I think, understand the nature of freedom. What do we mean by freedom and do we really want to be free? I am not at all sure that most of us want to be completely free of every burden, rather we should like to keep some pleasurable, satisfying, complex ideologies and gratifying formulas. We should of course like to be free of those things that are painful - the ugly memories, painful experiences and so on. So we should go into this question of freedom and enquire whether it is at all possible to be free, or if it is an ideological utopia, a concept which has no reality whatsoever. We all say we would like to be free, but I think that before we pursue that desire with which our inclinations or tendencies confront us, we should understand the nature and the structure of freedom. Is it freedom when you are free from something, free from pain, free from some kind of anxiety; or is not freedom itself entirely different from freedom from something? One can be free from anger, perhaps from jealousy, but is not freedom from something a reaction and therefore not freedom at all?

A mind that has understood the nature of pleasure and fear is no longer violent and can therefore live at peace within itself and with the world.

A mind that is not clear of fear lives in darkness, in confusion, in conflict. A mind that is caught in fear must be violent, and the whole psychological structure as well as the sociological life of a human being, is based on the pleasure/ fear principle - therefore he is aggressive, violent. You may have ideologies and principles of non-violence, but they are all utterly meaningless. As we said the other day, all ideologies, whether of the communists, of the churches or of a serious person, are idiotic, they have no meaning. What has meaning is to understand fear and to Understand fear one must also understand, very deeply, the nature of pleasure. Pleasure involves pain, the two are not separate, they are two sides of a single coin. To understand pleasure one must be fully aware of the subtleties of this pleasure. Have you ever noticed how people talk when they have a little power, when they are at the head of some silly, stupid organization? - they thunder like God because they have a little power. That means that to them pleasure has become an extraordinarily important thing. And if they are a little intellectual or famous, how their manner, walk and outlook changes.

It is important, it seems to me, that one should understand the nature of pleasure - not condemning it or justifying it, or keeping it in a deep corner of one's mind which one never examines because it may reveal a pleasure that may contain in itself tremendous pain. I think we should investigate closely, hesitantly, delicately, this question, neither opposing it nor resisting it - for pleasure is a basic demand of our life, the finding of it and the continuity of that pleasure, in nourishing it and sustaining it, and when there is no pleasure, life becomes dull, stupid, lonely, tiresome, meaningless.

Intellectuals throughout the world have found that pleasure doesn't bring a great deal of understanding, and because of this they have invented philosophies, theologies, according to the clever, cunning mind. But those of us who are serious must find out what pleasure is, what is the nature of it, why we are caught in it. We are not condemning pleasure, we are not saying it is right or wrong. People are violent because it gives them a great deal of pleasure - they get a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure from hurting somebody, verbally, physically, or by a gesture. Or one takes pleasure in becoming famous, writing a book. So one must find out what pleasure is and what is involved in it, and whether it is at all possible to live in a world that contains not pleasure but a tremendous sense of bliss, a tremendous sense of enjoyment, which is not pleasure at all. We are going to investigate that this morning - investigate it together, not by the speaker explaining and you listening, agreeing or disagreeing, but rather by taking the journey together. To take the journey together you must travel lightly and you can only travel lightly when you are not burdened with opinions and conclusions.

Why is it that the mind is always demanding pleasure? Why is it that we do things, however noble or ignoble, with the undercurrent of pleasure? Why is it that we sacrifice, give up, suffer - again on the thin thread of pleasure? And what is pleasure? I wonder if any of us have seriously asked ourselves this question and pursued it to the very end to find out? Obviously it arises from sensory reactions - I like you or I don't like you - you look nice or you don't look nice - that's a lovely cloud, full of light, the beauty and shape of that mountain, clear against the blue sky. Sensory perception is involved and there is a deep delight in watching the flow of a river, watching a face that is well proportioned, intelligent, has depth. And then there is the memory of yesterday which was full of deep enjoyment, whether it was sexual or intellectual, or merely a fleeting emotional response - and one wants yesterday's pleasure repeated - again it is a form of sensory reaction. Yesterday evening one saw a cloud on the top of the mountains, lit by the setting sun; as one observed it there was no `observer' but only the light and the beauty of that sunset - that left an imprint on the mind and the mind thinks it over and demands a further experience of that nature. These are obvious everyday phenomena in our lives, whether the perception of a cloud or a sexual or intellectual experience.

What are we, as human beings, concerned about - what is it that is most important for us, apart from the routine of daily living, going to the office and all that goes with that - what is fundamentally serious to each one of us? I think we should ask that question of ourselves, not to find an easy answer - and when we do put such a question earnestly, deeply, we shall begin then to find out for ourselves, whether money, position, prestige, fame, success, whether these things and all the implications involved in them, are really most important for each one of us. Or, are we pursuing a secret pleasure of our own - that pleasure of having a greater experience, a greater knowledge, greater understanding of life, which again is the pursuit of pleasure in different forms? And we may be very serious, seeking to find out what truth is and if there is such a thing as God yet is not that search, is not the pursuit of that, also tinged with pleasure? Or, are we merely pursuing physical satisfaction - sensorial, sexually, and so on? Of these things I think we should be very clear, because they are going to guide and shape our lives. Most of us are pursuing, outwardly and inwardly, pleasure, and pleasure is the structure of society. I think it is very important to find this out, because from childhood till death, deeply, surreptitiously, cunningly and also obviously, we are pursuing pleasure, whether it be in the name of God, in the name of society, or in the name of our own demands and urgencies. And if we are pursuing pleasure, which most of us are, which we can observe very simply, what is implied in that pursuit? I may want pleasure, I may want the fulfilment of that pleasure, through ambition, through hate, through jealousy, and so on - if I know, or observe, for myself, the nature and structure of pleasure then in the understanding of it I can either pursue it logically, ruthlessly, acting with fully open eyes though it involves a great deal of fear and pain - or come upon a state in which I can live in peace.

We were saying how extraordinarily important it is to bring about a psychological revolution so that we are totally outside society. There have been many revolutions, economic, social, ideological, but unfortunately they have brought about colossal misery, and peripheral improvement - they have not in any way solved the human problem of relationship. When we talk about revolution we are concerned with the psychological structure of society in which we are caught and of which we are part. And apparently we are not very serious about the psychological structure or the psychological nature of our being which has brought about a society which is so corrupt and which really has very little meaning. We don't take very seriously the question of how to be free from that society. At least there must be a few, a group of people, not organized round a particular form of dogma, belief, or leader, but rather a group of individuals who are seriously and with complete intent, aware of the nature of their psyche and of society and of the necessity of inwardly bringing about a total revolution - that is, no longer living in violence, in hatred, in antagonism, in merely pursuing every form of entertainment and pleasure. Pleasure and desire are not love. We pursue pleasure and desire and their fulfilment, sexually, or ambitiously - which we call love - at different levels of our existence, and this pursuit we consider imperative, necessary and demanding complete attention.

What we are concerned about, in this tent, during these talks and discussions, is to see if as individuals we can bring about in ourselves that quality of seriousness which in itself, through awareness of one's own nature, brings about a revolution: to bring this about, not through propaganda, not because we are here every other day for the next three weeks, not because we conform to a particular ideological pattern, but rather as human beings gathered together to understand the very complex problem of living - not belonging to any group, any society, any nationality, to any particular dogma, religion, church, and all that immature nonsense. So we are trying during these days to bring about in ourselves that quality of seriousness, which in itself, through awareness of its own nature - never accepting, never condemning, but observing its relationship to society - will bring about a revolution. That is what we are concerned with and with nothing else. Because everything else is rather immature, everything else leads to antagonism, to war, to hatred. Also we are concerned with action, not ideological action, not action according to a particular principle, or action according to Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, or action according to a particular religious dogma or sanction, but the action of a mind which, because it has freed itself from the sociological and psychological structure of society, has become a religious mind.

Find out for yourselves why you dream at all, not how to interpret dreams. Why do you dream and is it necessary to dream? You dream because during the day your mind is so occupied with outward things, your office, the kitchen, washing dishes, the children, outwardly occupied with the radio, the television, the newspaper, the magazine, the trees, the rivers, the clouds and everything that is impinging upon your mind. At those moments there is no hint of the unconscious. Obviously when the surface mind is very occupied, the deeper layers of consciousness, of that mind, have no relationship with it. And when you go to sleep, the superficial mind, which has been so occupied during the day, is somewhat quiet - not entirely quiet, but somewhat quiet. I am not a psychologist, I am not a specialist, but I have observed this and you can do it for yourselves. So when you go to sleep the superficial mind is fairly quiet and then the deeper layers intimate their own demands, their own conflicts, their own agonies. And these become certain forms of dreams, with intimations, hints. Then you wake up and say `By Jove, I have had a dream, it tells me something, or I must do something with it.' Or as you are dreaming the interpretation is going on. If you have ever followed a dream, as you are dreaming, the interpretation is also taking place. Then when you wake up your problems are solved, your mind is lighter, fairly clear. Now all that process is a waste of energy, isn't it? Why should you dream at all? Because if you are really awake during the day, watching every thought, every feeling, every movement of the mind, your angers, your bitterness, your envies, your hates, your jealousies, watching your reactions when you are flattered, when you are insulted, when you are neglected, when you feel lonely, watching all that, and the trees, the movement of the water, being greatly aware of everything outside you, inwardly, then the whole of the unconsciousness, as well as the conscious, is opened up. You don't have to wait for the night to sleep, to have the intimations of the unconscious. Then, if you do this, watch your mind in operation, your feelings, your heart, your reactions - that is, if you know yourself as you are in your relationships with the outer and with your own feelings - then you will see that when you go to sleep there is no dreaming at all. Then the mind becomes an extraordinary instrument which is always renewing itself - because there is no conflict at all, it is always fresh. And this is not a theory, you can't practise it. Such a mind is, by its very nature, really tranquil, quiet, silent. It is only such a mind that can see the beauty of life; and such a mind alone can know, can come upon, something which is beyond time. 13th July, 1967

So to have inward order, inward tranquillity and a mind that is not in conflict at any time, one has to understand the whole nature of thought and desire, and that understanding can only exist when thought doesn't breed further conflict. Just a minute, Sir, just a minute. Let us take a breather shall we? You know, it is very odd that you come prepared with questions and therefore you are not listening to the talk. You are more interested in the question that you are going to put than in listening to what has been said. Sir, take time, have a little patience, because we have talked about some thing very serious, that demands a great deal of enquiry, a great deal of looking into. If you have looked deeply into yourselves, you have no time to ask a question so immediately.

I see in myself a state of contradiction. I see how this contradiction has arisen, and that this contradiction is disorder and that there can be no order brought about by thought, because thought in itself is fragmentary, is limited; thought is the response of memory, and when that memory which is fragmentary, acts upon this contradiction it breeds further contradiction. So I see the whole of this phenomenon and the very seeing is the action within which there is no contradiction. Look, let's put it very simply. I see I am dull, stupid - the response to that is, I want to be more clever, intelligent, brighter. Now what has happened? I am dull, stupid, and I want to be brighter, more intelligent, in that there is contradiction already, therefore there is further conflict which is a further waste of energy. But if I could live with that stupidity, with that dullness, without the contradiction and therefore with the capacity to look at that dullness, it would be no longer dull. I don't know if you see? Or, I am envious and I don't want to change it, I don't want to become non-envious - the fact is, I am envious. Can I look at that envy without introducing its opposite, without wanting not be envious, or to change it, or to be specific about it? Can I look at that envy, which is a form of hate and jealousy, can I look at it, as it is, without introducing any other factor? The moment I introduce any other factor I bring in further contradiction. But envy in itself is a contradiction, isn't it? I am this, I want to be that, and so long as there is any form of comparative thinking, there must be conflict. And this does not mean that I am satisfied with what I am, for the moment I am satisfied with what I am I only breed further conflict. Can I look at my envy without bringing about conflict in that look? Can I just look at a beautiful house, a lovely garden with flowers, without any contradiction? Contradiction must exist as long as there is division, and the very nature of desire, which thought builds up, is to bring about division.

One has to understand this question of desire, but not intellectually, for there is no such thing as intellectual understanding. When one says, `I understand intellectually', what one actually means is, `I hear the words, and I understand the meaning of the words'. So when one uses the word `understanding', one is saying that to understand is to be immediately aware of the fact. If you are immediately aware of the fact there is understanding which is also action. So one has to find out what desire is. Why shouldn't there be desire and what is wrong with desire? When one sees a beautiful house, a lovely stream, a cloud lit by the evening sun over the mountain, when you look at all that, there is immense sensual pleasure, the enjoyment of lovely colour and so on. What is wrong with it? Why should one suppress it? And when one sees a lovely face, why shouldn't one look at that face? We know how desire arises, it is a very simple and a very obvious phenomenon that doesn't need a great deal of investigation. There is seeing, contact, sensation, and when thought interferes with that sensation desire arises. I can look at that beautiful face, well proportioned, intelligent, alive, not self-centred, it is not self-conscious of its own beauty and therefore no longer beautiful; I can look at it and the looking brings a sensation, and then thought comes in and all the things that thought develops, possession, holding, sex - the whole process begins, by thought. So the reaction is perverted by thought. But to react is normal, healthy, sane. It would be absurd to see a marvellous light on the cloud and not enjoy it, but thought dwells upon it and makes it into a pleasurable memory, and it wants that pleasure to be repeated. This is the whole nature of sex, thought chews over the pleasure, over and over again and it wants it to be repeated. So there is thought and desire which are always in contradiction with each other. Is it clear? Look, these are only ordinary explanations and as explanations have no value at all. But what has value is to see how desire comes into being, how thought interferes with sensation and makes it into a memory and the desire for the pleasure of that memory is given continuity and sustained by thought, nourished by thought.

I wonder, when you look, what is your response? Is it to the causes of conflict, or to the person with whom you are in conflict, or to the division between what you want and its contrary - or is it to the very nature of conflict?

I don't want to know with whom I am in conflict, I don't want to know the peripheral conflicts of my being. What I want to know, in essence, is why should conflict exist at all? When I put that question to myself, I see a fundamental issue, which has nothing to do with peripheral conflicts and their solution. I am concerned with the central issue, and I see, perhaps you also see, that the very nature of desire, if not properly understood, inevitably leads to conflict.

I desire contradictory things. Desire itself is always in contradiction; which doesn't mean that I must destroy desire - suppress is, control it, sublimate it. I see that desire in itself is contradictory - not the desire for something, for achievement, for success, for prestige, for having a better house, better knowledge, and so on, not in the object, but in the very nature of desire itself, there is contradiction. Now, I have to understand the nature of desire before I can understand conflict and when I am concerned with it I am neither condemning, justifying, nor suppressing it. I am just aware of the nature of desire, in which there is a contradiction, and that this contradiction breeds conflict. We are in ourselves in contradiction, wanting this and not wanting that, wanting to be more beautiful or more intelligent, wanting more power. In ourselves we are in a state of contradiction, and that state of contradiction is brought about by desire - desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

So I see desire as the root of all contradiction. Desire says I must have this, I must avoid that - I must have pleasure, whether sexual, or the pleasure of becoming famous, the pleasure of dominating, pleasures of various subtle kinds. Not achieving these, not being able to arrive at what I want, there is the pain of not achieving, which is a contradiction. So we live in a state of contradiction; I must think this, but I think that; I must be that, but actually I am this; there must be brotherhood of mankind, but I am nationalistic; I cling to my church, my God, my house, my family. So we live in contradiction. That is our life. And that contradiction cannot be integrated; that is one of the fallacies. Contradiction only comes to an end when I begin to understand the whole nature of desire. Throughout the world, in the Orient and the Occident, there are people who are interested in this, the so-called religious people - not the business man, not the army people, not the bureaucrats, they are not interested in any of these things, but the so-called religious people - knowing that desire is the root of all these things, they have said that it must be suppressed, sublimated, destroyed, controlled. But what is happening? Some Catholic priests are in revolt and want to get married and the monk is now looking outward. All the agonies of suppression, distortion, the brutal discipline of conformity to a pattern, have no meaning whatsoever, they don't lead to truth. To understand truth the mind must be completely free, without distortion - not a spot of it.

We know there is inward disorder, inward conflict, which expresses itself outwardly as war, and so on. Being aware of this disorder, this conflict, confusion, and misery, one begins to look, to find out why there is this disorder. Why do we have to live in disorder? Why do we have to have conflict every day - from the moment we wake up till we go to sleep or ultimately die? When we ask such a question, either we answer that it is inevitable and therefore cannot be altered, or we say we don't know the answer, and therefore wait for another to tell us how to look. If we wait for somebody to tell us how to look at this disorder, at this chaos, confusion, conflict, then we are waiting to discover the nature of conflict according to somebody else, therefore we have not discovered. Isn't that so? So it matters immensely how we look, how we say, `why do I live in conflict?'. Because when we are no longer seeking any authority to tell us, the moment we are free from the authority of another, we are already clear, our mind is already sharp to look. And to travel, to go up a mountain, we must not carry great burdens. In the same way, if to examine very clearly this complex problem we put away all authority, then we are much lighter, freer to look. Therefore, in order to observe, to act, to listen, there must be freedom from all authority; then we can begin to ask why we live in this dreadful, destructive inward conflict.

So we are going to examine the whole structure and nature of conflict; we are going to do it together, not the speaker alone and you merely a listener, a follower - but rather both of us together, a situation in which there is no authority whatsoever. Because where there is authority, inwardly there is disorder. And since we are investigating together, discovering, understanding, you have to work as hard as the speaker - it is your responsibility, not the speaker's alone.

We were saying, the other day, how important it is to understand the nature of conflict, not only outwardly as war, but also inwardly, which is much more complex, needing greater attention and deeper, wider understanding. Most of us are in conflict, at different levels of our consciousness. There is no one spot untouched by conflict. There is no one area which hasn't been a battlefield, and in all our relation ships whether with the most intimate person, or with the neighbour, or with society, this conflict exists - a state of contradiction, division, separation, duality, the opposites, all of which contribute to conflict. The more one is aware and just observing oneself and one's relationship to society and its structure, the more we see that at all levels of our being there is conflict - major or minor conflict - which brings about devastating results, or very superficial responses. But the actual fact is, that there is deeply rooted in all of us the essence of conflict, which expresses itself in so many different ways, through antagonism, through hate, through the desire to dominate, to possess, to guide another's life. Now is it at all possible to be totally free of this essence of conflict? Perhaps one can trim, lop off, certain branches of conflict but can one go deeply and unearth the essence so that there is no conflict whatsoever within and therefore no conflict without? Which does not mean that by becoming free of conflict we shall stagnate, or vegetate, or become un-dynamic, not vital, not full of energy. In enquiring about this matter one must first see whether any outward organization can help in bringing about peace within. There are whole groups of people, called by different names, who believe in creating perfect outward organizations - a welfare society bureaucratically run, or a society based on computer thinking, and so on - they believe that such organizations can bring peace to man. There are the Communists, the Materialists, Socialists, and also the so-called religious people who belong to various organizations; they all fundamentally believe that by bringing about a certain order outwardly there will be established through various forms of sanctions, compulsions and laws, freedom from all aggression and from all conflict. Also there is a group of people who say we will have order without conflict, if inwardly we have identified ourselves with a certain principle or ideology and live according to that - according to certain inward, established laws. We know these various types, but through conformity, whether enforced or willing, can there be the cessation of conflict? Do you understand the question? Can there be the cessation of conflict if you are either compelled outwardly to live at peace with yourself and your neighbour - compelled, brainwashed, forced - or, you are inwardly trying to live according to ideologies and principles given to man by authority - forcing yourself, struggling, trying constantly to conform? Man has tried every way - obedience, revolt, conformity and the following of certain directives, in order to live inwardly at peace - without any conflict.

Q: It's the nature of myself.

Let's put the matter differently. I see that war in any form, killing another from an aeroplane at a great height or with a gun at close quarters, or a battle between my wife and my self, or a battle in business, or a conflict within myself, is war. I may not actually kill a Vietnamese or an American but as long as my life is a battlefield I'm contributing to war. I see that. I see it first, as most of us are trained to, intellectually, that is, fragmentarily, and I see that if I take any action in that fragmentary state it will only contribute to further war, to further conflict. So I must find a state in which there is no conflict at all - a quality of mind that is not touched by conflict. I must find out first of all, if there is such a state, for it may be a purely theoretical, ideological or an imaginary state which is of no value at all. But I have to find it and to find it I must not accept that there is such a state. So, is there such a state? I can only find out if I understand the nature of conflict totally - the conflict which is the duality, good and bad - not that there is not the good and not that there is not the bad - and the conflict between love and jealousy. I must look at it without any judgement, without any comparison - just look. I begin to learn how to look, not how to do. I learn how to look at this vast complex field of life, neither accepting nor rejecting, comparing, condemning, justifying - but how to look - as I would look at a tree. I can only really look at a tree when there is no observer, that is, when the fragmentary process of thought doesn't come into being. So I look at this vast battlefield of life which I have taken for granted as the natural way of living, in which I must fight my neighbour, I must fight my wife, I must fight - you know - compare, judge, condemn, threaten, hate. I look at this situation that

So to see something totally, whether it is a tree, or a relationship or any activity that one has, the mind must be free from all fragmentation, and the very nature of fragmentation is the centre from which one is looking. The back ground, the culture as the Catholic, as the Protestant, as the Communist, as the Socialist, as my family, is the centre from which one is looking. So as long as one is looking at life from a particular point of view, or from a particular experience which one has cherished, which is one's background, which is the `me', one cannot see the totality. Thus it is not a question of how one is to get rid of fragmentation. One's invariable question would be `how am I who function in fragments, not to function in fragments?' - but that is a wrong question. One sees that one is dependent psychologically on so many things and one has discovered intellectually, verbally, and through analysis, the cause of that dependence; the discovery is itself fragmentary because it is an intellectual, verbal, analytical process - which means that what ever thought investigates must inevitably be fragmentary. One can see the totality of something only when thought doesn't interfere, then one sees not verbally and not intellectually but factually, as I see the fact of this microphone, without any like or dislike, there it is. Then one sees the actuality, that one is dependent and one does not want to get rid of that dependence or to be free of its cause. One observes and one observes without any centre, without any structure of the nature of thinking. When there is observation of that kind one sees the whole picture, not just a fragment of that picture and when the mind sees the whole picture there is freedom.

The mind is freed from dependence in seeing the totality of this whole structure of stimulation and dependence and in seeing that the mere intellectual discovery of the cause of dependence does not free the mind from dependence. Seeing the whole structure and nature of stimulation and dependence and how that dependence makes the mind stupid, dull, in active, the seeing of the totality of it, alone, frees the mind. Does one see the whole picture or does one see only a part of the picture, a detail? This is a very important question to ask oneself, because one sees things in fragments and thinks in fragments - all one's thinking is in fragments. So one must enquire into what it means to see totally. One asks if one's mind can see the whole, even though it has always functioned fragmentarily, as a nationalist, as an individualist, as the collective, as the Catholic, as German, Russian, French, or as an individual caught in a technological society, functioning in a specialized activity, and so on - everything broken up into fragments with good opposed to evil, hate and love, anxiety and freedom. One's mind is always thinking in duality, in comparison, in competition and such a mind functioning in fragments cannot see the whole. If one is a Hindu, if one looks at the world from one's little window as the Hindu, believing in certain dogmas, rituals, traditions, brought up in a certain culture and so on, obviously one does not see the whole of mankind.

There are certain things which must be taken for granted. First we must understand what we mean by communication, what the word means to each one of us, what is involved, what is the structure, the nature, of communication. If two of us, you and I, are to communicate with each other there must not only be a verbal understanding of what is being said, at the intellectual level, but also, by implication, listening and learning. These two things, it seems to me, are essential in order that we may communicate with each other, listening and learning. Secondly, each one of us has, obviously, a back ground of knowledge, prejudice and experience, also the suffering and the innumerable complex issues involved in relationship. That is the background of most of us and with that background we try to listen. After all, each one of us is the result of our culturally complex life - we are the result of the whole culture of man, with the education and the experiences of not only a few years, but of centuries.